An Industry that Dodges Bullets

Entering the year of our Lord 2009, many participants in the hedge fund and alternative-investment industry in were of the opinion that the industry was on the eve of a radical transformation, at worst, effective elimination, due to government actions in a variety of jurisdictions that might result from the ongoing credit/financial crisis.

Yet it now appears that the industry may survive that impulse. I’m impressed by what hasn’t happened – by how any bullets it has dodged of late. Six come to mind at once.

1. The Insurance Department in New York appears to have lost interest in a plan, mooted last year, to regulate CDS’ as insurance.

2. The Governor of New York backed away early this year away from a plan to tax carried interest as ordinary income in that state's income tax

3.. The composition of the EU Parliament has changed in a way that will create difficulties for the implementation of new regulations of hedge fund managers there

4. Three efforts to regulate hedge funds failed in the General Assembly of Connecticut this year: although one of them had passed the state senate, they’ve all died with the end of session

5. In the US federal government, the new administration has dropped plans to radically rework the chart of its financial regulatory agencies

6. And the ban on short selling of a range of finance industry firms announce last fall was allowed to expire, and there seems no impetus to renew it.

Controlling Group

I over-promised yesterday, when I said I'd discuss the legal issue today of whether Greenberg is running a "controlling group" in the meaning of New York's law governing who does or doesn't get to control an insurance company.

Researching the matter turns out to be more trouble than I thought, and would expect that words like "control" and "group" have the same meaning in New York state law, in particular in its insurance law, that they have in the federal securities regulatory system.

But maybe not. The point, after all, is different. In federal securities law, the question often arises, "is so-and-so seeking to acquire control of a company without paying a control premium for it?" That is, after all, how the temptation to buy shares through surrogates, acting informally as a 'group,' would arise. An acquirer given its druthers wouldn't announce on the news "I'm going to start buying up AIG shares until I control the company"! That would be akin to saying, "Please demand ever-higher prices from me for that stock -- I'll pay them," and this of course gets to be expensive. Hence the phrase "control premium."

But the acquirers don't get their druthers. If you act surreptitiously, as a 'group,' to acquire the stock without paying such a premium you're in violation of the securities laws and regulations which require candor on such matters, on the theory that its only fair to pay the stockholders that sort of control premium, and you've cheated them out of something if you avoid paying it.

There's more to it than that, but my point is just that the significance of words "control" and "group" in the typical securities litigators' setting is different from the concern of the insurance regulators of a state to keep track of just who it is they are regulating. The meaning of the words may not be the same.

And of course you must suppress any impulse that arises in your throat to say, "maybe group just means plain-old-English 'group'." Tautologies don't enlighten.